Talk:Arguments for and against drug prohibition/Archive 2

Health
"Drugs can be used spiritually, medicinally, and recreationally, improving users' physical and mental health." This is not original research. It is commonly accepted that spirituality, medicine, and recreation are good for you. Or are you disputing that drugs are in fact used in these ways? 68.40.167.60 16:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You may not be aware of WP:Verifiability. I removed it not becuase I doubt it is true but because it needs a citation. I am removing this again until it can be verified. Also, taking two cited facts and using them to create a third fact is considered original reaseach. Example, Drugs are used to improve spirituallity, spirituallity is good for you, therefore drugs are good for you. Now if you can cite a source where someone reliable has made that connection aswell then it will pass. HighInBC 16:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Also, taking two cited facts and using them to create a third fact is considered original reaseach. Example, Drugs are used to improve spirituallity, spirituallity is good for you, therefore drugs are good for you." I dispute this. The connection is implicit. 68.40.167.60 17:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wish to dispute this idea, then go to the talk page on the policy No original research. But please do not simply keep reverting your edit. I have removed it because it does not meet the official standards of the encyclopedia. Also, please note WP:3RR which warns the excessive reverting is an offense here. HighInBC 17:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing anything on No original research. I am disputing your interpretation as applies here. Maybe you could point me to the relevant part in that article? Also note that you have reverted more times than I. 68.40.167.60 17:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * specifically:No original research. Although you don't even have citations for the base assertions yet. As for me reverting more than you, I suppose if you count the 2 reverts I did after each other as 2 instead of one However it says on WP:3RR consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be one;.HighInBC 17:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not synthesizing anything. Anyone who says drugs are used spiritually, medicinally, or recreationally is also saying that drugs are good for you. Citations? spirituality & spiritual drug use; medicine & medication; recreation & recreational drugs 68.40.167.60 17:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I should have said before, wikipedia cannot refer to itself for a reference as the point of a reference is to verify with an outside source. An enclyclopedia is a collection of previously published and accepted information, not a place for new information. I am sure if you looked for previously published sources citing these idea they can be included, but until then they cannot stand. HighInBC 19:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * From WP:Verifiability: Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. HighInBC 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are a little too caught up in this whole citation thing; it's rather obvious and doesn't need citations. Or should it read: "Drugs can be used spiritually, medicinally, and recreationally, improving users' physical and mental health."? 68.40.167.60 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * does not respond, so I cannot check it's validity as a source. It is not rather obvious, it does need a citation, but I am not going to revert you any more today. HighInBC 22:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, got it to resolve, that is a general landing page, a citation should lead you to the specific page that has the information backup up your claim. HighInBC 22:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, does not seem to be a Reliable source as they are not a primary source, and as a secondary source does not have any independent primary sources listed in their references, they have no references at all from what I can see.


 * I am not trying to be a hassle, but this article is contsantly fighting uncited material. Many editors are working very hard to keep it factual. HighInBC 22:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, excellent example of a citation of a secondary source that references to multiple independent primary sources. Not only does it confirm your statement but it contains all sorts of information that can be used to build the section up into something larger. HighInBC 16:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Availability
"Illegal drugs can be hard to obtain for people who have difficulties with social relations. This limits not only drug abuse but spiritual, medicinal, and recreational use as well."

I would like to add this but it was removed with a request for citation, though it seems obvious to me. Can anyone help me find a reference? 68.40.167.60 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ilegal drugs prerequisite an ilegal trader, so it's a truth of it's own, your further deduction implies a subjective opnion, and Should be delted. ("This limit not only..but..also good stuff"). -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 21:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well isn't it obvious that if something is hard to obtain, its use is limited? How are you supposed to use it if you don't have it? 68.40.167.60 21:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Recreation
why move recreation under personal freedom but not religion or medicine? The way I see it, recreation is one of the main ways to use drugs, and really the only reason drugs should be legal is so we can use them. 68.40.167.60 16:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the content was so short it needed to be put somewhere, and recreational use means you use it for recreation. Medicine and religion are different than recreationg, so I put it under personal freedom. Personal freedom seems to match recreational use rather well to me.


 * Small snipits of information should be worked into sections that encompass them until they are too large to fit. This is not a rule, but more of a guide in the manual of style(WP:MOS) used to give the encyclopedia a unified look. You can add valid information as you see fit and other editors will copyedit it, so you don't have to worry about this part too much. HighInBC 16:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was: the religious use snippit could be moved under personal freedom in the same way. Recreation isn't just a personal freedom thing, and everything is a personal freedom thing. Personal freedom could just as well be an argument for prohibition. 68.40.167.60 16:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I see now. Religion is a group activity, and while it does fall well within the range of personal freedom I think it also goes beyond it as a community issue. I don't see how personal freedom can be an argument for prohibition as personal freedom does not mean freedom over other people, it means freedom over oneself. I suppose one could claim they used their personal freedom to prohibit drugs, but I think that would be an abuse of the term. I could be wrong.


 * I would say that some arguement for moving the religeon information to the personal freedom section could be made. But I cannot agree that personal freedom can be seen as an argument for prohibition. HighInBC 16:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If drugs were legalized, we would gain the freedom to use drugs but lose other freedoms, so says the 'for' section. There is a cost to society as a whole as detailed in the economic section (money is freedom), and there would be more addicts who are slaves to their drug use. 68.40.167.60 17:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you are refering to, if the article is contradictory then seek citations to show whichc is right, and remove the wrong. It has not been shown here yet that legalization would increase addicts. HighInBC 18:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Legalisation is thus likely to increase drug-taking in society" "Proponents of drug prohibition fear a society with more addicts..." "If these same companies were able to sell drugs that were arguably more addictive and pleasurable, then chances are even more people would become addicted." It sure looks to me like "more addicts" is a reason for drug prohibition. 68.40.167.60 19:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, nobody has found a citation showing that legalization would cause more addicts. Any statement to that effect needs to be attributed to the person saying it or removed. HighInBC 19:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Legalisation is thus likely to increase drug-taking in society" is original research, I have removed it. "Proponents of drug prohibition fear a society with more addicts..." is true, it is something proponents fear. "If these same companies were able to sell drugs that were arguably more addictive and pleasurable, then chances are even more people would become addicted." is also original research and has been removed.


 * Thanks for finding those, keep up the good work. HighInBC 19:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would just like to note here that the last one, "If these same..." has been reverted and is back in the article, apparently as unsourced as it was before. 68.40.167.60 16:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It has been reworded by another editor to attribute the statement to 'critics'. By attributing a statement to a person you can make it acceptable, as the encyclopedia is not saying "This is true", but is instead saying "This person says this is true". In this case the person is a hypothetical critics without a name. It would not be hard to find a citation for someone holding this view. I am not going to remove it again, but I am also not going to defend it. HighInBC 17:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If an unfounded claim is going to be presented here, it should be accompanied with a note saying that it is unfounded. 68.40.167.60 18:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, unless the statement can be attributed to a real person with a citation it should not be included as it can be mistken for a declaration of fact. HighInBC 21:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if the statement is attributed to a real person with a citation, if what they are saying is wrong, the article should mention this also. 68.40.167.60 22:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Illegal drugs are far less toxic than legal drugs
This argument is a logical fallacy and should be removed. 68.40.167.60 12:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, lots of things we consume are toxic to some degree, I think less toxic is a valid arguement against the prohibition of consuming an item. That logical fallacy refers more to moral problems, not health problems. That is just my personal reading of it though. HighInBC 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because illegal drugs cause less health problems than legal drugs doesn't mean that the health problems they do cause are insignificant. 68.40.167.60 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No of course not insignificant, but not so signification as to make the arguement invalid. I am interested in more editors opinions on the matter, as it does not seem clear cut. HighInBC 15:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole thing reads like an argument _for_ drug prohibition. 68.40.167.60 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, since my arguement for the statement is weak, and nobody else has commented, I think that it can be removed per being a logical fallacy. HighInBC 16:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Summery of Arguments against prohibition
This summery seems out of place, it states a few blanket issues that most arguement apparently fall under, then many of the sub sections below do not match any of these catagories.

I think they should be moved into the appropriate sub sections below leaving only a short paragraph or nothing as a summery. The section Arguments for prohibition should match this stylistically. I am going to work on this. HighInBC 16:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Economics and psychosocial arguments
"Given the high social cost of existing licit drugs (alcohol and tobacco), prohibitionists can confidently argue that legalisation of illegal drugs will lead to widespread availablility and aggressive marketing by manufacturers." Does this sentence make sense? 68.40.167.60 18:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is poorly worded speculation. Good catch. HighInBC 19:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

contradiction
"While politicians blame drug users for financing terrorists, no clear evidence of this link has been provided. On the other hand, US government agencies and government officials have frequently been caught trafficking drugs to finance US-supported terrorist actions." Drug users were on the other end of this trafficking. 68.40.167.60 19:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure what your complaint is here, there is no clear evidence of this link and the US government has been caught trafficking drugs. HighInBC 19:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

When it says the US government has been caught trafficking drugs, it means they sold or helped sell drugs from other countries to US drug dealers, who sold them to drug users. 68.40.167.60 19:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that invalidates the point, who else are they going to sell them to? HighInBC 19:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It invalidates the point because it is evidence of drug users financing drug dealers financing the US government financing terrorists. 68.40.167.60 19:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah I see your point. Well the drug users are not actually financing the terrorists unless they know that they are buying from the government and they know the government is financing terrorists. While the government has knowingly used drugs for such purposes. It is worded poorly, I will take a stab at it. HighInBC 19:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Phew, how does that look? I think the key distinction here is that the accusation is that it is a major form of funding. HighInBC 20:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide view
About the worldwide view tag on this article, this article must center on areas where drug prohibition is actually taking place due to the subject. Is the tag there because a particular regions POV is being neglected or a regions POV being given too much attention? HighInBC 19:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

us market is the largest illegal drug market
I removed this cause it seems to be lack of worldwide view, taken from an argument that the US should legalize. This fact is neither surprising nor relevant. Drugs should be legal cause the US consumes more drugs than other countries? 68.40.167.60 16:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the crux of the arguement is that if it makes up a significant portion of the economy, then there is a clear demand for it. HighInBC 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean if drugs make up a significant portion of the US's economy? That's not what the sentence is saying. 68.40.167.60 16:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I see, I misread the statement. Your right. Not only is it not really relevent, but a bit confusing as written. HighInBC 17:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Prohibition causes more harm than good
The sources cited here seem to be talking about the US only, but the article does not mention this. 68.40.167.60 21:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A statement does not need examples from throughout the world to be verifiable. Do you think that the US is bias in some way toward the argument Prohibition causes more harm than good? I would say their bias go towards the opposite of the spectrum. It seems every objection you have to the worldwide view is an objection to a US sources. The US has a major role in prohibition, and it is not bias to represent that role in the citations. HighInBC 22:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The facts are good, although the name of this section is a bit silly. Obviously anyone arguing against prohibition believes it causes more harm than good. It's just that instead of "Despite increasing amounts of money being spent on prohibition, drugs have become more accessable, cheaper, and more potent," it should say: "In the US, despite increasing amounts of money being spent on prohibition, drugs have become more accessable, cheaper, and more potent." Otherwise it sounds like it is saying that this is true everywhere, which is not supported by the citations.68.40.167.60 22:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said before, US drug polices directly influence the drug policies throughout the world. Here are some examples of this in publication:

"US policies directly influence the drug policies throughout the world, and in the US drugs have become more accessible, thus drugs have become more accessible everywhere." This doesn't hold. 68.40.167.60 23:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again you are putting words I did not say into my mouth, this time using quotes, please don't do that. What I said what more along the lines of "The US has a major role in prohibition, and it is not bias to represent that role in the citations.". HighInBC 23:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As I already stated, when the article says, "Despite increasing amounts of money being spent on prohibition, drugs have become more accessable, cheaper, and more potent," leaving out the "In the US" part, it sounds like drugs have become more accessible, cheaper, and more potent worldwide. This is not true, or at least not supported by citations. 68.40.167.60 23:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

too many against arguments
Some of them should be grouped together or something. 68.40.167.60 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why too many against? I think there are too many in general. NPOV does not mean giving each arguement equal coverage, it means giving each arguement the coverage justified by existing research materiel. Grouping together is a great idea on some of them, mostly a question of making good sounding sentences(not my strong point). I merged a few points yesterday. I am glad to see this article under scrutiny. HighInBC 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

consistency
drugs should be legal because some drugs (alcohol and tobacco) are really bad for us? 68.40.167.60 22:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That one is a bit shaky. And we do have too many arguements. Be sure to try to salvage what you can if you deleted it and put it into other areas. HighInBC 02:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

proven ineffectiveness
Just because drug trafficking and use have increased doesn't mean they wouldn't have increased more if drugs were not illegal. I don't believe what this section claims and it needs to cite sources if it wants to stay in. 68.40.167.60 03:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * True, the section is all wrong. It should be pointing to the fact that the amount of people arrested is neglegable to the amount of people doing drugs. Or the fact that the amount of drugs they confiscate is neglegable to the amount of drugs on the market. I will have to do some searching for citation on that subject. You are right, the way it is now is like saying something isn't toxic because the population keeps rising. HighInBC 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

citations in the 'criminilization increases...' section
I'm not sure about the last edit. They are actually last names, and if you search the list of references in the bottom you will find the full names and works of these authors being referred to. They could certainly be switched to or [#] style cites though. 68.40.167.60 16:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I see, I have never seen that citation style before. If the citations are valid they I guess the statements should be there, as it was though it was not clear which citations they were refering to. HighInBC 16:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

criminilization increases profits for drug dealers
Making murder illegal increases profits for hitmen. Thus, murder should be legal. I'm seriously thinking about junking this section. 68.40.167.60 16:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That analogy is flawed. Murder is something done to other people, wheras drugs are done to oneselves. The secondary crimes cause by the inflated prices of drugs can lead to more harm than the drugs themselves are doing. The secondary crimes related to murder do not generally exceed the harm caused by the murder itself. HighInBC 16:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Often the better solution is to fix a section of an article than to junk it. This is not terribly important as editors can go back into the history an rescue deleted material, but it does help alot. HighInBC 16:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

forbidden fruit
OK, so forbidding something romanticizes it, thus drugs should be legal. This argument fails because it is not necessarily bad that it is romanticized in this way. Again, you could apply this argument to murder. 68.40.167.60 18:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You like to compare things to murder heh? HighInBC 21:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * you murder analogies are like the Nazi analogies that pop up in heated arguemnts all over the net. Murder of a fellow citizen for the sake of personal gain is absolutely accepted as not moral in All coltures. substance abuse is not. it's actualyl a fairly new thing, as european royalties of the 18 century used to have opium parties in public.-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 09:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This does not make the 'forbidden fruit' argument relevant or valid. The new argument: "drug use is not traditionally accepted as immoral in all cultures, thus it should be legal," also doesn't make sense. This is basically saying that morality must be the same across all cultures. Why can't our culture's concept of morality be different? 68.40.167.60 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Drug induced deaths
The statement "there were 15,852 drug-induced deaths;" worries me a bit, because when I look at the citation the document gives that number refering to drugs in the classes:

"(F11.0-F11.5,F11.7-F11.9,F12.0-F12.5,F12.7-F12.9,F13.0-F13.5,F13.7-F13.9,F14.0-F14.5,F14.7-F14.9, F15.0-F15.5,F15.7-F15.9,F16.0-F16.5,F16.7-F16.9,F17.0,F17.3-F17.5,F17.7-F17.9,F18.0-F18.5, F18.7-F18.9,F19.0-F19.5,F19.7-F19.9,X40-X44,X60-X64,X85,Y10-Y14)"

The document does not seem to explain what these classes represent, thus there is no way to tell if this information is relevent. I may have to removed the material sourced to that citation unless this is addressed. HighInBC 21:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As explained in the section "cause-of-death classification" in said document, those codes refer to the WHO's International Classification of Diseases. 68.40.167.60 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It still does not say which drugs. The number means nothing in this context because we don't know if the drugs in question are legal or illegal. Comparing one drug, alcohol, to a list of drugs that is not specified does not seem to reveal much information. HighInBC 23:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 68.40.167.60 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That citation does not tell me which drugs it refers to. It is a disease classification system, the problem is the citation does not show which drugs. HighInBC 00:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 68.40.167.60 02:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you even reading what I am typing? This is another link to disease classification. My complaint is that the drugs the stat refers to are not known. HighInBC 21:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You have to do a little clicking. Look up the numbers in the document, they say for example F11.0. So you click on the link that says F00-F99. Then you click F10-F19. 68.40.167.60 21:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will say this again, even once you click all around there, it does not talk about which drugs are in the study. It talks about causes of death. HighInBC 05:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 68.40.167.60 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And I'll the be the first to admit they apparently included tobacco in 'drug-induced.' I got that one as well as the thing about cocaine addicts increasing from 2 to 20 million from a dea page about legalization, but when I searched for the source on the addicts one I found a quote saying it was actually 'cocaine abusers,' which in the context of that paper most likely meant 'cocaine users.' I thought I had found a good source of information, but I should have known not to trust the government about drugs. 68.40.167.60 09:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the same study from which the consistency section gets its argument that alcohol use kills 80,000 a year gives an even higher number for deaths caused by 'illicit use of drugs': 17,000. Perhaps it should be noted that while there a six times as many alcohol users as drugs users, there are only 4.7 times as many deaths caused by alcohol. 68.40.167.60 09:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a difference though. alcohol related deaths are usually he result of a long physical abuse or car accidents. illegal drug use usualyl only causes death by and Overdose (relates to the problem of uncontrolled purity). furthermore death by ALL illegeal drugs against the death toll from a Single drug, is hardly a rightful lcomparison. I advice you to register wikipedia in order to better communicate. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 10:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

racism section
I'm considering taking this one out for more worldwide view. It's not surprising that there is racism against blacks in the US. This doesn't mean that drugs should be legal, it means the US has a problem with racism. 68.40.167.60 03:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Worldwide view does not mean you leave something out because it is from a region. The US is a major part of prohibition, that much is clear, therefore an article on the subject can mention them. To make it a more worldwide view you are better to add things from other countries than the remove each reference to the US.


 * It is better to repair or add than to remove. It is rare that a whole section is un-repairable, a sentence here or there may not be salvagable but larger things can be repaired. HighInBC 14:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I was misleading when I said 'for more worldwide view..' Ignore that part of my argument. Making drugs legal will not solve racism in the US. 68.40.167.60 20:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The argument 'drug laws are enforced unfairly in one part of the world, thus drugs should be legal' doesn't hold. 68.40.167.60 21:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is drawing into question the motivation the laws themselves. What more, US drugs policy has a tremendous effect on world wide drug polices. HighInBC 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The argument 'drugs laws are enforced unfairly, thus they are unfair' or 'thus the motivation behind the laws is racism' doesn't hold. Also, the section only mentions racism in the US, not world wide. 68.40.167.60 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also doesn't hold: 'the motivation behind the laws is racism, thus drugs should be legal.' 68.40.167.60 22:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to compare with murder. If I were the only cop in a town, and I only arrested black people who killed people and not white people, would you necessarily think that murder should be legal? 68.40.167.60 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalism
Perhaps you would like to discuss the edits I have made here? 68.40.167.60 04:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

btw, what does JS: mean? 68.40.167.60 04:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * your edits were reverted, you should discuss blanking whole sections BEFORE erasing them. you were already given a warning, next time you will be blocked.-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 12:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that vandalism is the wrong word here. Bold, unrestrained editing yes, swift removal of wads of information yes, but not vandalism. I believe it is 68 is trying to improve things here but is still learning the proccess. Diza is right that removing large amounts of material is not constructive, most of these sections can be repaired.


 * 68, you may find people give you a greater benefit of the doubt if you made a username, it is not right that IP's are treated different, but it is true. HighInBC 14:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish people who aren't even admins would stop threatening to block me. 68.40.167.60 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Admins do not have any special authority, only special power. It is the job of every wikipedian to enforce the rules. If a regular editor presents evidence to an admin, they can get you blocked. And if and admin blocks you without evidence it will be undone. HighInBC 21:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

ok, well, I will not edit this article for the time being without approval here first. Please see above for most of my proposals. New proposal: in the sections I don't like, 'proven ineffectiveness', 'forbidding drugs can romanticize them', 'criminalization increases profits...', 'consistency' and 'racism', I will take out all the unsourced statements. 68.40.167.60 19:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for and against drug prohibition
For: Drug prohibition prevents harmful use.

Against: Drug prohibition prevents beneficial use.

The question is whether the harmful use prevented is worse than the beneficial use prevented is good and whether the difference warrants the energy spent on (or lost by) enforcing prohibition. 68.40.167.60 04:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the crime secondary to drug prohibition is also secondary to drug use. Perhaps the solution is not to end prohibition but to end drug use. 68.40.167.60 04:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your agenda is becoming more clear. HighInBC 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you caught me. I hate drugs. ;) 68.40.167.60 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Due to recent vandalism...
My edits weren't vandalism! You are just locking the page to keep IP's from editing. 68.40.167.60 17:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that after multiple editors reverted my edits, most of which I discussed here first, I stopped making them. 68.40.167.60 17:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it was not vandalism. But it was harmful to the article. It is better to repair than destroy here. The problem is many people can share the same IP, so when an IP user does something that is harmful(such as removing vast amount of content) it is often assumed to be a vandal sharing the same IP as other editors. Basically, we have no way of knowing if you are the same person from one edit to another. I suggest a user name which is more anonymous as your IP is hidden that way. HighInBC 17:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is a good time to point out that removing vast amounts of content is not harmful nor unconcstructive if said content is irrelevant, unsourced, and untrue. 68.40.167.60 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If said content is irrelevant, unsourced, and untrue, then yes it would not be harmful. But your arguement for removing them were mostly based on your opinions, not citation or wikipedia policy. And while you did announce some of it on the talk page, it was not much of a discussion. HighInBC 17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You can request the page protection to be removed here: Requests_for_page_protection. HighInBC 17:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinions are supported by wikipedia policy, such as "no irrelevant information" (I am pretty sure this is a policy) and "cite your sources." This article does not cite its sources for most of its claims. 68.40.167.60 18:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * When information may be correct it is better to research and find a citation for or against it than to remove it. Often content is added first, and citations come later. Text can be immediatly removed when the fact is dubious, but this should be done sparingly not wholesale. It is better to put tags there for a while to give someone the chance to find citations. But as I said, the place to oppose a page block is here: Requests_for_page_protection. State your case there and people may agree with you. HighInBC 18:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

invalid arguments
Opponents of prohibition do often use foolish and invalid arguments such as 'alcohol and tobacco are bad for you and are legal, thus drugs should be legal.' Thus, there is a place in this article for them. However, the article should also mention that these arguments make no sense. 68.40.167.60 19:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The arguement is that the laws are inconsistent with the declared motives. This is relevent. HighInBC 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The argument 'The laws are inconsistent with the declared motives, thus drugs should be legal.' is also invalid. Here's an analogy: let's say I am policymaker for a country. I make shooting people illegal under the premise that firearms cause pollution, yet I allow use of firearms for other purposes such as hunting. Does this mean that shooting people should be legal? In short: Just because the declared motives make no sense doesn't mean the laws make no sense. 68.40.167.60 20:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The topic is not should drugs be legal. The topic is should drugs be prohibited. Thus the motive behind prohibition is relevent. And yes, I think laws should be based on motives, and then reflect those motives. HighInBC 21:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 09:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. And what I meant by legal is 'not prohibited.' 68.40.167.60 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If so, than no credit is due to the originator. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 09:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, let me make sure I heard you right. You would support legalizing murder if the declared motives for making it a crime were 'cause it causes pollution?' 68.40.167.60 21:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And what exactly are the declared motives in this case that laws are incosistent with? 68.40.167.60 21:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

16000 people in the US died from murder in 2004. This is less than the 80,000 or so that died from use of alcohol. Use of alcohol is legal. Thus, murder should be legal because the laws are inconsistent with the declared motives. 68.40.167.60 23:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Lol :) making logical fallacies through madeup exapmles, is not a consistent analogy. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 09:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My made up examples serve to point out logical fallacies through analogy. However, in this case nothing was made up or hypothetical. I even cited my source. 68.40.167.60 21:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be pushing a POV rather hard, talking about murder when the subject is prohibition, repeating yourself, and putting words I did not say into my mouth. I have decided to go edit different articles, you can do what you will here but other editors will probably come by and tell you the same things I am.


 * I find conversing with you to be unproductive at this point. I will come back in a week or so and see what the state of this article is. HighInBC 01:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nuts. I scared off the one person who was actually discussing things with me. I will try to watch my tone in the future and not make things personal. 68.40.167.60 03:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will take this on. While the argument that "drugs should be legal because some things worse for your health are legal" is incomplete, it's not invalid. Specifically, it can combined with the argument that "adults, as intelligent individuals, should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to engage in activities which may damage their health, and not be treated as children, who are presumed to be incapable of making such decisions". This argument has been used successfully to keep alcohol, tobacco, firearms, etc., legal, despite their obvious health risks. Thus, the same argument is being made on behalf of drugs which are currently prohibited. To state it more concisely: "If adults are presumed capable of making health decisions regarding the risks of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, then they should also be presumed capable of making similar decisions regarding currently illegal drugs". StuRat 07:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur.


 * As the article states (I belive I put that in) A LOT more people die from over eating annually than Anything Else. yet overeating is not just totally legal, it's an innate cultural property of some western society-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 09:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "If adults are presumed...then they should also be presumed capable of making similar decisions regarding currently illegal drugs." Why? Illegal drugs are not the same thing as alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. What qualifies as a 'similar' decision? What prevents me from substituting 'illegal homicide' or 'nuclear weapons' for 'illegal drugs'? 68.40.167.60 15:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's so obvious I don't know why you need to ask. Homicide and nuclear weapons have the potential to kill millions of people other than the decision makers, whereas drugs, if legal, would mainly only kill those who decide to use them.  There might be a few "innocent victims", but certainly nowhere near the number who currently die from drunk driving and as a result of drugs being illegal (shot by drug dealers, etc.). StuRat 01:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, there are two ways to resolve an inconsistency. Perhaps the solution is not to make drugs legal but to make alcohol, tobacco, and firearms illegal. 68.40.167.60 21:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We tried making alcohol illegal in the US during prohibition. It was an unmitigated disaster, giving rise to a Mafia culture that is only now starting to dissipate.  Drug prohibition has also been a disaster, but spread over such a long time period we don't have any memory of what things were like before prohibition. StuRat 01:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The argument that adults should not be protected from self-harm is already in the 'personal freedom' section, and stands on its own without statistics like "alcohol kills 80,000 people a year." Whether or not alcohol is bad for you and whether or not it is legal are irrelevant to whether or not drugs should be legal. 68.40.167.60 21:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that alcohol is harmful and legal doesn't show that adults _shouldn't_ be protected from self-harm, it shows that they _aren't_ in one particular case. 68.40.167.60 21:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The use of the precedents to determine future action is a longstanding practice in law. The precedent in letting people decide for themselves whether to drink alcohol is therefore directly relevant to this discussion, as are the precedents to allow smokers and gun owners decide for themselves. StuRat 01:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point...I will drop this argument for 'inconsistency'.

I just think that this article should answer the question "why are drugs illegal?"

This is basically my thing with this article:

"The majority of the world's nations (everyone except the Netherlands) must have a reason more substantive than the few words currently in the wiki for their stance on drugs. What are those reasons? Personally I am against prohibition so I struggle to think of reasons for but there must some and they must be good. Any For people have some good material? --AndrewC 08:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)"

68.40.167.60 03:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many reasons why certain drugs were prohibited but others weren't:


 * 1) The naive notion that "everything bad should be illegal" is common among young governments and young voters. Later, more experienced governments and voters tend to realize that some bad things, like divorce, should be legal, because the alternatives are even worse.


 * 2) Drugs used in other cultures, like opium, were seen as "an evil foreign influence", while drugs with a widespread historical presence in the US were accepted as "normal" (such as alcohol and tobacco). Those with a business interest in the legal drugs, also lobby the government to eliminate the competition.


 * "Those with a business interest..." I have been searching for evidence of this on the internet, and have found that it is a common claim, but have not found a way to confirm it. I think it's important because it implies that illegal drugs can help, medically, more than the legal ones. The drug companies know this, thus they lobby "to eliminate the competition." Anyone care to help? Where should I be looking? 68.40.167.60 14:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Or does "legal drugs" in this case mean alcohol and tobacco, and not pharmaceuticals? 68.40.167.60 14:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 3) After the initial prohibition, a self-perpetuating circular logic figures in: "if they are illegal, they must be bad, and if they are bad, they should be illegal". Thus, "anything that is currently illegal should forever remain illegal".   StuRat 04:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think lots of people want a good reason for prohibition, but the worlds governments are not held to the standards of wikipedia, so it is only natural that we come to different conclusions. World leaders do not have to worry about WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability so they are able to make laws based on arguments that will not hold here. HighInBC 03:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But on that subject, Wikipedia can (and should) document the arguments they do make. Considering leaders and lawmakers are the ones actually enacting or upholding prohibition, their arguments should be fully reflected in this article.  All that needs to be verifiable is that they espoused those views.--Father Goose 06:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think we have covered most of the arguments that goverments actually put forward.HighInBC 13:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Economics and psychosocial arguments
"While a distinction is often made between 'problem use' of drugs (addiction, alcoholism, binge drinking etc.) and recreational use of drugs (e.g. in clubbing or party settings), drug-induced intoxication is unlikely to gain the user credit as a model citizen or philanthropist."

I'm removing this statement because it is (1) POV, (2) un-related to the topic heading, and (3) doesn't make a useful point. How is philanthropy relevant here?

The citation below this (NIDA 2006) isn't linked so I've asked for a citation. Please make sure that people can find the appropriate independent information. In fact, I've asked for a lot more citations in this section. Most of the statements seem pretty biased, so make sure they're justifiable.
 * I've added it back without the philantropist part (which was silly). I emphasize that intoxication acceptance IS related to it's origin's legal status.-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 08:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "In the case of licit psychoactive substances (e.g. alcohol and tobacco), such costs are easily ascertainable and are rarely redeemed by tax revenue or the economic/employment contribution made by their manufacturers. In


 * Disgree with that if you want to talk outside of the united states. A smoker in the UK pays 8 times the health costs he gives to the NHS taxation over his (reduced) lifetime on average, please back up this claim with data for /more than/ just the USA please. I'm putting citation in required, not deleting for now. mr_happyhour 5 Oct 2006

keeping criminals busy
doesn't drug prohibition keep criminals busy doing innocent work instead of them stealing, killing people etc? ;) exe 19:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's more like the exactly opposite. Drug prohibition keeps the black drug market alive, and that market is full of the shit you just mentioned. --JonasRH 12:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There is not a set amount of criminals, murderers and theives don't get a new job when a new crime comes about. Not sure what your line of reasoning is. HighInBC 16:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There are 2 counteractive factors at work -


 * Drug prohabition makes the trafficing of illegal substances VERY profitable, and thus attracts oppurtunists of various kinds, deemed "criminals" becaue of this -I.e creating criminals. (such as the al capon example)
 * legalizing drugs will give officals administrativce power over the market, making it legal. Yet the arguemnt for this side is that this can compromize more citizens into becoming addicts by making the stuff "easyier to get", those addicts will steal to get their shot. (albeit this argument has basic flaws) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diza (talk • contribs) September 24, 2006 (UTC)


 * Actual legalizations have resulted in fewer addicts historically. HighInBC 13:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)